2025:UHC:11148 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 9 5 7 / 2 0 2 4 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. S.K. Posti, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2. Petitioner participated in a selection for the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) in a Government aided institution. A list of top seven candidates were prepared by competent authority and, according to petitioner, he was placed at serial number 2 in the list of shortlisted candidates. 3. After issuance of call letter to all shortlisted candidates including petitioner, the selection process was cancelled pursuant to a Government Order. Petitioner challenged cancellation of selection by filing Writ Petition No. 1233 of 2019 (SS), which was allowed vide order dated 11.11.2021 and authorities were directed to give appointment to the petitioner, pursuant to his placement in the select list. However, in Appeal, the direction issued by learned Single Judge to appoint petitioners was set aside; however it was provided that the authority will proceed with the selection process 2025:UHC:11148 from the stage where it was stopped. Operative portion of the judgment dated 19.12.2023, passed by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 316 of 2022, is extracted below: “8. We, accordingly, set-aside the direction issued by learned Single Judge to appoint the respondent. However, rest part of the said impugned judgment and order, is upheld. The Authorities will proceed with the selection process from the stage where it was stopped and based on recommendation of selection committee appointment shall be made.” 4. The grievance raised by petitioner in this petition is that despite the judgment rendered by Division Bench, authorities have undertaken exercise of short listing and petitioner has been excluded from the list of top seven candidates. This, according to petitioner, is in teeth of the judgment rendered by Division Bench. 5. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Law is well settled that the amendment, if any, made in the Rules or Policy will not affect the ongoing selection. The change in policy was made after notification of vacancy /commencement of selection process. 7. Division Bench has categorically held that even though petitioner does not have a right to be appointed as selection process was yet to be completed; however, it was incumbent upon the 2025:UHC:11148 authority to proceed with the selection process from the stage where it was stopped. Since list of top seven candidates was prepared and petitioner with other six shortlisted candidates was called for interview, therefore it is now obligatory on the part of authority to make selection out of those candidates who were shortlisted, before cancellation of selection process. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the authorities to undertake the necessary exercise in terms of observation made above within three months from date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.12.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.12.15 16:23:37 +05'30'